The passages in which the court addresses the fabricated authority, verbatim, by document. A bracketed ellipsis marks where a passage was cut for length; nothing else is changed.
Docket entry 177, 19 December 2025 · source · PDF · 17 pages
Docket text. Plaintiff's MOTION for Contempt Against Danielle Morron for Violation of Protective Order by Huntington Bank. Responses due by 1/5/2026. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - November 19 2025 Email, # 2 Exhibit B - November 9 2025 Email, # 3 Exhibit C - November 29 2025 Email, # 4 Exhibit D - December 5 2025 Email, # 5 Exhibit E - Additional December 5 2025 Email, # 6 Exhibit F - Written Transcript, # 7 Exhibit G - December 8 2025 Email, # 8 Exhibit H - FDIC Chemical Bank Details, # 9 Exhibit I - FDIC Chemical Bank History, # 10 Exhibit K - December 11 2025 Email Criminal Statues Implicated in Potential Notarial Fraud, # 11 Exhibit L - December 13 2025 Email, # 12 Exhibit Composite M December 18 2025 Email, # 13 Exhibit J - December 11 2025 Email Fraudulent Affidavit of Huntington Officer)(Zeher, Nicholas) (Entered: 12/19/2025)
Kalish and Non-Party Danielle Morron [ECF No. 103] ("Prior Motion"), seeking relief from Morron's systematic harassment campaign involving AI-generated pleadings with fabricated citations, threatening communications, extortionary demands, and interference with these proceedings. 2.
On October 16, 2025, United States Magistrate Judge Hunt entered the Protective Order [ECF No. 144] ("Protective Order"), which specifically enjoined and restrained Morron from: (1) making threats, using abusive language, or engaging in conduct designed solely to intimidate, annoy, embarrass, or otherwise haras s any Party associated with this case; (2) submitting pleadings containing fabricated case law or non -existent legal authorities; and (3) violating Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. 4.
The Protective Order Is Valid and Enforceable On October 16, 2025, this Court entered a clear and specific Protective Order [ECF No. 144] that enjoined and restrained Morron from: (1) making threats, using abusive language, or engaging in conduct designed solely to intimidate, annoy, embarrass, or otherwise harass any Party; (2) submitting pleadings containing fabricated case law; and (3) violating Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. The Protective Order was entered pursuant to this Court's inherent authority and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), following Huntington's Motion for Protective Order and an evidentiary hearing.
Docket entry 103, 28 July 2025 · source · PDF · 18 pages
Docket text. Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Contempt and Motion for Protective Order by Huntington Bank. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Hearing Transcript from Digital Audio Recording Before the Honorable Patrick M. Hunt, # 2 Exhibit Emails from Stanley Kalish, # 3 Exhibit Emails from Non-Party Danielle Morron and Stanley Kalish, # 4 Exhibit Cease and Desist Letter, # 5 Exhibit Email from Non-Party Danielle Morron, dated June 17, 2025, # 6 Exhibit Emails from Non-Party Danielle Morron and Stanley Kalish on Conferral, # 7 Exhibit Non-Party Danielle Morron Instagram Follow Request, # 8 Exhibit Florida Bar Complaints, # 9 Exhibit Non-Party Danielle Morron Instagram Comments)(Zeher, Nicholas) Added MOTION for on 7/29/2025 (cds). (Entered: 07/28/2025)
57) issued clear and unambiguous orders designed to preserve the integrity of these admiralty proceedings. Specifically, the Court prohibited the use of AI-generated pleadings containing fabricated legal citations or ghost-written motions and/or correspondences, and made clear that Case 0:25-cv-61018-WPD Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2025 Page 1 of 18 Case No.: 0:25-cv-61018-WPD -2- non-party Morron cannot represent Kalish in these proceedings or otherwise file pleadings on his behalf. Rather than comply with these explicit judicial directives, Morron and Kalish have engaged in a coordinated campaign of defiance that demonstrates willful contempt for this Court's authority.
9. Rather than comply with the Court's directives, Kalish and/or Morron have filed at countless additional pleadings since June 6, 2025 which exhibit the identical AI -generated Case 0:25-cv-61018-WPD Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2025 Page 3 of 18 Case No.: 0:25-cv-61018-WPD -4- characteristics, fabricated legal citations, and ghost -written authorship that the Court specifically warned against, including: • ECF No. 54: Kalish’s Objections to Report and Recommendation contains numerous fabricated or misquoted citations to alleged case law, including: o Venus Lines Agency v.
Tex. 1986) - The citation retrieves an unrelated postal service case; the cited case appears to be completely fabricated . Case 0:25-cv-61018-WPD Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2025 Page 4 of 18 Case No.: 0:25-cv-61018-WPD -5- o Commercial Nat'l Bank v.
Brown, 605 F.2d 1355 (5th Cir. 1979) - Citation pulls up a different, unrelated case; the cited case name does not exist. • ECF No. 69: Kalish’s Motion to Dismiss cites to Marine Midland Bank v.
69: Kalish’s Motion to Dismiss cites to Marine Midland Bank v. Portnoy, 1978 AMC 931 (S.D.N.Y.1978), but this case does not exist as cited. The case name and citation partially match two unrelated cases and neither case supports the holding cited by Kalish, even remotely. • ECF No.
Fla. 2001), but neither this case name nor citation exist anywhere in any legal database, indicating it was fabricated by AI. • ECF No. 96: Memorandum of Law in support of Kalish’s Motion to Dismiss cites to In re Olympic Mills Corp., 477 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir.
10. These post-hearing filings demonstrate escalating contempt, as Kalish and Morron have now filed more AI-generated pleadings with fabricated citations since the June 6 hearing than Case 0:25-cv-61018-WPD Document 103 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/28/2025 Page 5 of 18 Case No.: 0:25-cv-61018-WPD -6- they filed before it, showing complete disregard for this Court's authority and deliberate escalation of the prohibited conduct. 11.
11. The very conduct the Court warned could constitute unauthorized practice of law— non-party ghost-writing of AI-generated pleadings with fabricated citations —has not only continued but dramatically escalated since the Court's explicit warnings, with more fab ricated citations appearing in post-June 6 pleadings than in all previous filings combined. 12.